11-04-2005 02:56									#1
	One case where capital punishment is definitely wrong Tired of ads?

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...68?OpenDocument

quote: Family asks Blunt, court to spare relative from execution By Tim O'Neil Of the Post-Dispatch 04/09/2005 A family that knows both sides of a gruesome murder is asking Gov. Matt Blunt to spare a relative who is to be executed on April 27 for killing his grandmother. "We have had enough death in our family," said Matthew Knuckles of Rock Hill. "We just don't want any more grief to come from this." Donald Jones, 38, is to be executed by lethal injection for beating and stabbing to death his grandmother, Dorothy Knuckles of St. Louis, in her home in 1993. Jones' relatives are asking Blunt to reduce his sentence to life in prison without parole. Leading the effort for the family are two brothers of the victim - Matthew Knuckles, a Rock Hill alderman for 16 years; and Lester Knuckles, mayor of Velda Village (now Velda City) from 1976 to 1981. The family is circulating a petition, has filed a request for clemency with Blunt and is working with lawyers to file more court appeals. The Missouri Supreme Court set the execution date for Jones after the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 6 turned down Jones' previous appeal. If the execution is carried out, Jones would be the 63rd person put to death by Missouri since 1989, when it resumed the penalty under federal court guidelines set in 1976. Dorothy Knuckles, 68, was murdered in her home in the 3700 block of Cozens Avenue on March 6, 1993. A St. Louis Circuit Court jury found Jones guilty of beating her with a butcher block and stabbing her fatally after she refused to give him money for drugs. Jones was arrested three days later and gave police an audiotaped confession in which he blamed the crime on "the monster in me." He had taken his grandmother's car and "rented" it to two men in exchange for two rocks of crack cocaine. Several members of the family, including his two uncles, urged the trial court in 1994 to spare Jones' life. They said they oppose the death penalty as a matter of principle. "Two wrongs don't make a right, and the Bible will tell you that," said Lester Knuckles. Bill Swift, a public defender in Columbia, Mo., said he will ask the Missouri Supreme Court next week to halt the execution and reconsider several issues. One of them, he said, concerns a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that increases the requirements for defense lawyers to examine a defendant's life history. But Swift said the family's own opposition should be compelling enough. "This family went to the prosecutor and then went into court and said, 'We don't want the death penalty,' and yet their preference was ignored," Swift said. "Usually, the courts talk about how the victim's family wants the death penalty. Not this family." Scott Holste, a spokesman for Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon, said his office "will continue to oppose any attempts to court to get this sentence overturned." Jessica Robinson, a spokeswoman for Blunt, said the governor has asked the state Board of Probation and Parole to consider the case and offer a recommendation. She said Blunt will review the case

Anyone want to defend the prosecutor in this one?

	11-04-2005 03:03									#2
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Since when does the defendant's family get to decide what punishment the defendant should receive? The fact that the victim was also family member doesn't change that. The criminal commited a vicious, capital crime, and he should be executed for it. The fact that his family doesn't believe in the DP for religious grounds should be irrelevant.

Last edited by Wycoff on 11-04-2005 at 03:11

	11-04-2005 03:03									#3
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

No, DP is always wrong.

	11-04-2005 03:08									#4
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The death penalty is always wrong, but extra wrong in this case.

	11-04-2005 03:09									#5
	Support Apolyton

While I too oppose the death penalty, basically what Wycoff said. We don't let the family decide when they want a harsher penalty, why should we let the family decide when they want a more lenient penalty? The success of our judiciary rests in everyone having access to the same justice, and creating exceptions does no good at all.

	11-04-2005 03:11									#6
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Kamrat X No, DP is always wrong.

Why?

	11-04-2005 03:12									#7
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Admiral While I too oppose the death penalty, basically what Wycoff said. We don't let the family decide when they want a harsher penalty, why should we let the family decide when they want a more lenient penalty?

Should people also not be given the choice to press charges when faced with more minor crimes? They get some input because they are the ones directly impacted by the crime.

quote: The success of our judiciary rests in everyone having access to the same justice, and creating exceptions does no good at all.

There's nothing successful about an overbearing and arbitrary 'justice' system.

	11-04-2005 06:46									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Admiral While I too oppose the death penalty, basically what Wycoff said. We don't let the family decide when they want a harsher penalty, why should we let the family decide when they want a more lenient penalty?

Your reasoning is admirable, Admiral. I concur.

quote: Originally posted by General Ludd Should people also not be given the choice to press charges when faced with more minor crimes? They get some input because they are the ones directly impacted by the crime.

No, they get some input because the prosecution gets embarassed when their witnesses refuse to show up.

	11-04-2005 07:38									#9
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Zkribbler No, they get some input because the prosecution gets embarassed when their witnesses refuse to show up.

That was a more broader "they". If the judiciary can't accommodate matters on a case by case basis, it isn't worth having.

This was strictly a family affair, so the family should have some say in the actions that should be taken.

quote: We don't let the family decide when they want a harsher penalty

Don't prosecuters often pressure the court for a harsh penalty?

	11-04-2005 08:02									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by General Ludd This was strictly a family affair, so the family should have some say in the actions that should be taken.

Murder is never "strictly a family affair." The state has a compelling interest in the enforcement of its laws. If this were the case where the family wanted the DP for the defendant but the prosecutor did not or could not, the fact that this was a "family affair" wouldn't allow the family members to take it upon themselves to execute the defendant.

	11-04-2005 10:54									#11
	Suffering from ads?

whilst I'm against the death penalty.... allowing the victim's family to intervene on the nature of a sentence sets a dangerous precedent.
The only way to get rid of the death penalty is to ban it.

	11-04-2005 10:57									#12
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Anyone want to defend the prosecutor in this one?

Who cares what the victim's family wants in the form of punishment? We don't live in a society where blood money can be paid to the victim's family instead of the execution. The law should be followed.

	11-04-2005 12:11									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I agree with this, as well.

	11-04-2005 13:08									#14
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Iīm with Wycoff and Admiral in this one.
While Iīm also against DP, the defendant shouldnīt be able to take "advantage" of the fact that it was a family member he murdered.
I believe there are alot of people who are waiting for execution and even less deserve DP than this man, but donīt have the advantage of their family trying to intervene.

Either get rid of DP within this state altogether or punish this man according to the law (which obviously means execution)

	11-04-2005 13:55									#15
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Wycoff Why?

Because itīs barbaric excuse for justice. And because you can never be sure you execute the right man. And because life is a inviolable human right. And because...

	11-04-2005 14:04									#16
	Remove this text

justice is just a form of revenge...if the people that are affected the most by a crime dont want that much revenge why not...if someone beats you, you can choose not to press charges right...then why not give this guy life with parole instead of DP if the family of the victim wants it?

	11-04-2005 14:22									#17
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Maybe because officially the sentences issued by courts arenīt meant to be some kind of revenge but just a means to protect society from those who commit crimes (i.e. a means to prevent those who commiting crimes from commiting further crimes) (of course unofficially they are some kind of revenge [at least in case of DP as people could also be locked away for their lifetime] but what counts is what these sentences are officially meant to be).
They arenīt connected to the family of the victim, but just to the results the actions of the offender had onto the victim (in this case a premature death) and what the law says about these things.
I believe, what the victim itself thinks of the crime could probably make a difference but well, in this case the victims is dead, she canīt tell the judges anymore what she thought about being killed by her grandson

Last edited by Proteus_MST on 11-04-2005 at 14:36

	11-04-2005 14:53									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

i agree that putting away criminals is also for protection of the society but the reason and that is i think also the official reason it to 'punish' them but taking away some of there civil rights...e.i freedom to vote, freedom of movement for a number of years so that they 'pay' for there crimes. protection of the society is a perk.

	11-04-2005 17:41									#19
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Dracon II whilst I'm against the death penalty.... allowing the victim's family to intervene on the nature of a sentence sets a dangerous precedent.

And killing someone, against the wishes of everyone involved, no less, isn't?

	11-04-2005 18:10									#20
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by General Ludd And killing someone, against the wishes of everyone involved, no less, isn't?

The reason we have a justice system is that, when in this case someone is killed, it no longer is a family affair. And in terms of murder, first, killing one's own family shouldn't generate a more lenient sentence. But second and more importantly, when one does commit murder, one does harm not only to the victim, but to the society as a whole. And in this context, it is society as a whole, functioning through the judiciary, that should determine the sentence.

	11-04-2005 18:18									#21
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I would say that killing someone, in accordance with the wishes of everyone involved, is also bad.

If they forgo the death penalty because the parties involved didn't want it... then you have to accept that the opposite might also happen. Bear in mind that the families of victims very rarely want a more lenient sentence for the accused.

I just don't think that deciding a sentence for someone should be influenced by interested parties.

A bent rule is still a rule... if the death penalty is deemed inappropriate in this case it should be inappropriate in any case. Either live with it (excuse the morbid use of the word 'live'), or get rid of it.

	11-04-2005 18:42									#22
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Oh, Dracon, we've missed you so. Spot on .

	11-04-2005 18:59									#23
	Tired of ads?

quote: I would say that killing someone, in accordance with the wishes of everyone involved, is also bad.

true, because they dont have a say about his life... that is the reason why we have a justice system so that people dont take it upon themselves. but are you really trying to say that letting someone live is essentially the same as killing someone?

	11-04-2005 19:29									#24
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I agree with DraconII. Whether you agree with the death penalty or not, sentencing should not be determined by whether your VICTIM ( or their family) happens to be for or against the death penalty

	11-04-2005 19:33									#25
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Kamrat X Because itīs barbaric excuse for justice. And because you can never be sure you execute the right man. And because life is a inviolable human right. And because...

1. What makes it barbaric?
2. You can set an evidentiary bar high enough to have certainty. DP shouldn't be used without plenty of solid evidence, and should never be used in cases in which the only evidence is circumstantial.
3. Life is not an inviolable right. If you are trying to rape or maim me, and I have no other way to escape, I can legally kill you. The attacker revoked his right to life in the same way that a heinous criminal revokes his right to life.

	11-04-2005 19:37									#26
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Proteus_MST Maybe because officially the sentences issued by courts arenīt meant to be some kind of revenge but just a means to protect society from those who commit crimes (i.e. a means to prevent those who commiting crimes from commiting further crimes) (of course unofficially they are some kind of revenge [at least in case of DP as people could also be locked away for their lifetime]

Is it more immoral to swiftly execute someone that you have total proof of their crime, or to keep that person alive and fed in jail for 40 or 50 years while there are homless people or starving people in the society? What is the point of keeping that man alive, and why does he deserve state resources more than a law abiding citizen? All punishment has some element of revenge.

	11-04-2005 19:37									#27
	Suffering from ads?

How was the sentencing phase of the trial handled? Was the family allowed to speak? That might have made a difference to the jury.

However, I'm with Admiral.

	11-04-2005 19:42									#28
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: 3. Life is not an inviolable right. If you are trying to rape or maim me, and I have no other way to escape, I can legally kill you. The attacker revoked his right to life in the same way that a heinous criminal revokes his right to life.

and

quote: Is it more immoral to swiftly execute someone that you have total proof of their crime, or to keep that person alive and fed in jail for 40 or 50 years while there are homless people or starving people in the society? What is the point of keeping that man alive, and why does he deserve state resources more than a law abiding citizen? All punishment has some element of revenge.

does this just point out that the justice system is 100% right yet and we should not go killing people before it is?

	11-04-2005 19:46									#29
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by DeathByTheSword does this just point out that the justice system is 100% right yet and we should not go killing people before it is?

There should be reviews of every capital case. However, there are plenty of cases even now where it there is a 100% certainty that the convict commited the crime. When these people are found in the review, then put them back on death row.

	11-04-2005 19:48									#30
	Increase the size of your Attachments

No one revokes their right to life. They may, however, put themselves in situations where that right may be temporarily ignored. Your right to life can only be taken from you by due process of law.